Now, see this.

I think:

when it comes to citizens, we either want to be taken care of by our government as much as possible/feasible, or we want it to leave us alone as much as possible/feasible;

when it comes to elected representatives, it is the same — they either want to take care of their constituents as much as possible/feasible, or they want to make sure the government leaves their constituents alone as much as possible/feasible;

however, the larger the scale of government, the more the latter approach results in harm to its citizens, regardless of motive.

I believe:

a desire to eliminate bureaucracy does not justify causing harm to those a system is meant to serve;

no principle is worth pummeling the most vulnerable people of our society;

to sacrifice the welfare of a few for the principles of any is an alter unworthy of humanity — and yet, it is the ethos of modern conservatism.

I think:

folks either actively want to help others or they don’t care.

As an individual, not caring seemingly has little impact; however, as a representative of many citizens, not caring results in swaths of suffering. Only helping actively improve lives can keep from adding more suffering to the system — and even then, often falls short and results in some pain — and have a hope of serving the common good.

Not caring is not an option.

Those who do not have the instinct to actively benefit others should not serve — as politicians, as civil servants, as any sort of leader — ever. Even if they have no malice in them, no evil intent, they will only inflict suffering on others, because of their apathy.